- Collection:
- Scholarly Works
- Title:
- Targets and Timetables: Good Policy But Bad Politics?
- Creator:
- Bodansky, Daniel M.
- Date of Original:
- 2007-11-01
- Subject:
- University of Georgia. School of Law
Law--Study and teaching
University of Georgia--Faculty - Location:
- United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794
- Medium:
- articles
- Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- Description:
- ARCHITECTURES FOR AGREEMENT: ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE POST-KYOTO WORLD, edited by Joseph E. Aldy and Robert N. Stavins (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007), pp. 57-66
From a policy perspective, a climate architecture based on economy-wide, binding emissions targets, combined with emissions trading, has many virtues. But even such an architecture represents good climate policy, it is far more questionable whether it represents good climate politics -- at least in the near-term, for the upcoming "post-2012" negotiations. Given the wide range of differences in national perspectives and preferences regarding climate change, a more flexible, bottom-up approach may be needed, which builds on the efforts that are already beginning to emerge, by allowing different countries to assume different types of international commitments – not only absolute targets, but also indexed targets, taxes, efficiency standards, and so forth. Such an approach would not provide a long-term solution to the climate change problem; the more costly climate change mitigation is, the more states will want greater assurance that their efforts are being reciprocated by other states. But a bottom-up approach might help break the current impasse and get the ball rolling. It reflects, not ideal policy, but rather less than ideal politics.
Environmental Law -- International Law - External Identifiers:
- Metadata URL:
- https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/234
- Holding Institution:
- Alexander Campbell King Law Library
- Rights:
-
